You, like other Christians before and after you, lack critical thinking skills

my thinking skills are NOT on debate here. And i regard your assertion as a personal attack. unless you are able to address just the questions raised, i will not see reasons to spend my time, answering to you.

We talk about computer code because computers utilize only binary signals - that is, 1s and 0s. Trying to program a computer directly, using those same 1s and 0s, would be a horrendous task, and thus we invented programming languages to allow us to tell the computer what to do without having to resort to writing the instructions out in 1s and 0s. In fact, the 1s and 0s are symbols which represent the state of off/on switches within the computer, which means that every programming language ever invented, all the way down to machine language, is a code. Not because it was 'designed', but because it's a representation of something else.

That's all a code actually means. So it is actually incorrect to infer that a code means something designed. A code only means that it's a second-level (or higher) interpretation of something.

What you quoted just sounds like the old argument that biological organisms are too complex to occur naturally in nature.

thats exactly right !!

So God created nature in such a way that biological organisms were too complex to occur via his creation, but then later intervenes in his creation so that biological organisms can exist in his creation. What is the reason for not just making it easy for his creation to give rise to biological organisms so that he didn't have to intervene in his creation? Did he forget to leave himself a note on the fridge or something? What?

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

I have no idea what you just pulled that quote from, so I have no way to discern how valid it might be. Leaving that aside, even if the two were actually the same - something you haven't proven - that doesn't mean anything as far as your 'design' argument goes. As far as I can tell, the text you quoted simply declares, without any real evidence, that certain things just represent intelligence. It simply assumes that anything that looks designed must have been designed, which is a great example of circular logic.

Quote from: Godexists

you mean, that the dna code is much smarter designed than any human made codes ?

Do not attempt to rewrite my statements to support your own bad argument. I meant that computer code was inspired by DNA - which doesn't say a thing about what the source of DNA is. We have poetry inspired by sunsets, waterfalls, rainbows, and many other things. Because that poetry was 'designed', does it mean that the sunsets and waterfalls and rainbows and whatever else were also designed? That's your argument in a nutshell - it assumes the very thing it's intended to prove.

Quote from: Godexists

No, thats actually of paramount importance. If all coded information can be tracked back to a intelligent source, than the DNA code has a intelligent source as well.

Except that when you simply assume that because other codes were designed, that DNA must have also been designed, you're simply engaging in circular logic. You're assuming the very thing that you're trying to prove. If you want to prove that DNA was designed, you must find evidence that shows that DNA was actually designed. The reason you can say that other codes were designed is because you can point back to the evidence which shows that they were, such as the person who devised the specific arrangement of dots and dashes used in Morse code, or the person who wrote the first programming language. But you don't have anything like that for DNA, and thus you don't have a basis for your argument. That's why I said it was irrelevant that other codes were designed.

Quote from: Godexists

The atheism card house falls apart.

More like your circular argument falls apart. I mean, seriously, did you expect circular logic, a known logical fallacy, to actually sway anyone?

Quote from: Godexists

Only , if you are able to assign to it a natural source without intelligence.

Until we actually find out how DNA came to be, any declaration that it must have been designed is a circular argument.

Quote from: Godexists

Not needed.

It is absolutely needed, because otherwise you're trapped inside a circular argument.

Quote from: Godexists

Haha !! We don't need more knowledge or experience to understand, that physical necessity, chance, or natural selection cannot produce coded information. And even if we could solve that riddle, many others await the believer in naturalism, which will crash his cardhouse.

Do you really think this demonstrates anything more than your level of ignorance on this subject? I mean, you seriously think that you can just say, "it's impossible, and even if it isn't impossible, there's other impossible things out there", and have people actually give up, just like that? Did you not stop to think that science is all about solving riddles, and that scientists enjoy the challenge involved in their chosen field?

Quote from: Godexists

your problem is : that evidence exists.

Then start producing it. If it exists, then you should have no problem. Except all you've managed to produce are statements about how it has to be impossible by people who don't know the odds in the first place.

Quote from: Godexists

No, thats a logical inference based on a true premise.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? You don't have any way to show that your premise is true. Not only that, but I (and undoubtedly many others) have shown that it's actually flawed due to being circular in nature - because you assume that the very thing you're trying to prove is true.

Quote from: Godexists

there are many irreducible complex systems in the cell.

Sorry, but I don't buy into the concept of "irreducible complexity". That's just a fancy way of saying, "it's impossible for it to have come about on its own" - the same worthless argument you tried to use just a bit ago. The only thing it accomplishes is to inspire scientists who disagree with it to demonstrate that it's wrong. Given their track record - such as finding out that the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum was actually reducible and based on much simpler bacterial structures - I trust them a lot more than I trust Behe.

Here's the challenge for Godexists. In order for his statement that DNA is an example of an intelligently designed code to be meaningful, he has to show us several things.

First, that the actual chemical bases of DNA (cytosine, adenine, guanine, and thymine) are symbolic of something else. I don't mean the names that we've given them as identifiers, I mean the actual chemical bases themselves. That's the most basic requirement of any code - that it is symbolic of something else. Whether you talk about Morse code, computer code, or other kinds of codes, they all use symbols to refer to other things[1]

Second, that there's evidence that those chemical bases were intentionally put together by something. I don't mean by trying to show the odds against it happening naturally or by accident - such odds are ridiculously easy to manipulate, or simply make up - but by showing us the equivalent of their trademarks. When humans make things, we identify them by trademarks. That means that if the DNA chemical bases were made by something, they would have the equivalent of trademarks somewhere.

These are the minimum he has to show in order for me to acknowledge that there's a reasonable possibility that DNA was intelligently designed.

We talk about computer code because computers utilize only binary signals - that is, 1s and 0s. Trying to program a computer directly, using those same 1s and 0s, would be a horrendous task, and thus we invented programming languages to allow us to tell the computer what to do without having to resort to writing the instructions out in 1s and 0s. In fact, the 1s and 0s are symbols which represent the state of off/on switches within the computer, which means that every programming language ever invented, all the way down to machine language, is a code. Not because it was 'designed', but because it's a representation of something else.

That's all a code actually means. So it is actually incorrect to infer that a code means something designed. A code only means that it's a second-level (or higher) interpretation of something.

In order to be able to be a representation of something else , the code must be designed. A mental process is required.

Quote

A code only means that it's a second-level (or higher) interpretation of something.

So God created nature in such a way that biological organisms were too complex to occur via his creation, but then later intervenes in his creation so that biological organisms can exist in his creation. What is the reason for not just making it easy for his creation to give rise to biological organisms so that he didn't have to intervene in his creation? Did he forget to leave himself a note on the fridge or something? What?

God made all creation to be glorified. Microbiology glorifies his wisdom , power and intelligence.

Symbols are indeed things that represent other things. However, that is all that the word 'symbol' means. Any declaration that it carries thoughts or messages from a personal, intelligent mind must be supported with evidence or else it is nothing but an opinion. In short, this is where your logic fails.

Furthermore, what scientific inquiry has actually discovered is that DNA sequences represent instructions - not symbolic and not encoded - for making chemicals. There is no symbolism involved, except on our end - because we describe those chemicals with symbols. Similarly, any idea of it being encoded exists only in our own minds, because we describe a set of three bases as a gene, and thus it becomes a code as far as we're concerned. But that does not mean that something else encoded DNA with symbolic instructions.

Quote from: Godexists

Therefore DNA ultimately came from a mind, who had to make decisions, and be extraordinarily intelligent.

Sorry, but I don't buy into the concept of "irreducible complexity". That's just a fancy way of saying, "it's impossible for it to have come about on its own" - the same worthless argument you tried to use just a bit ago.

you don't buy it, because it does not fit your preconceived world view. Not, because the evidence does not lead in that direction. It actually does. And that quit clearly.

Quote

The only thing it accomplishes is to inspire scientists who disagree with it to demonstrate that it's wrong. Given their track record - such as finding out that the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum was actually reducible and based on much simpler bacterial structures - I trust them a lot more than I trust Behe.

thats a pseudo scientific try to get out of the dilemman, but the problem of the flagellum has never really been solved. And as the flagellum, there are many other nano motors in the cell, that are irreducible complex, namely the atp sinthase, the kinesin motor proteins, the rybosome, chaperones, the Cotranslational protein translocation, translesion synthesis, hexameric helicases etc. Just to name a view. And in the same way, as in a car motor engine, if one part of the motor is missing, the whole engine will not work anymore, in the same way, if one of the organelles is missing, the whole cell will not work anymore.

For example :

Chemist John Walton noted the dilemma in 1977 when he stated:

"The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in he nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for his machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information, the machinery cannot be produced. This presents a paradox of the 'chicken and egg' variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile."

There is good evidence to suggest that the process of cell division is indeed irreducibly complex, for the steps involved are interdependent and highly coordinated. For example, crucial steps such as DNA transcription require proteins (see Figure 1)—while protein synthesis in turn is dependent upon transcription. Moreover, evidence suggests that the processes involved in cell division are highly regulated and coordinated in a sequential fashion. For instance, in bacteria, cytokinesis does not proceed until DNA replication is complete, so that the DNA is precisely partitioned into the developing daughter cells. Each process itself is complex and if any one of the processes is inhibited, cell division ceases. This interdependence fits the criteria of an irreducibly complex system.

Indeed it would seem that for any cell to function there needs to be not just proteins but, at the same time, these chaperone systems, which are absolutely essential for proper folding and maintenance of proteins. Without such systems, in place already, the cell will not function.

Replication must begin somewhere. Why not at the origin of replication with the formation of a replication fork. A prepriming complex of proteins forms. Included are DnaA proteins and single stranded binding proteins. Also involved are DNA helicases to separate the strands, DNA topoisomerases to respond to supercoils, DNA polymerase and DNA ligase.

Don't bother making semantic arguments about how to define irreducible complexity. There are multiple parts needed for function. The challenge lies in demonstrating the incremental evolution of these components.

I find the phenomenon of the DNA supercoiling problem and its biochemical solution even more compelling than examples like protein synthesis and the bacterial flagellum, since twisted ropes are familiar to everyone. This might make for another highly persuasive ID mascot.

How could random variation and natural selection come up with a pair of biochemical scissors and a repair mechanism that cuts and splices the twisted DNA molecule in order to relieve torsional tension? What would be the functional, naturally-selectable intermediate steps in a hypothetical stochastically generated evolutionary process? It is clear that there could not possibly be any.

Paul Nelson then elaborates that the construction of one irreducibly complex machine (like the flagellum) requires the work of other machines; and those machines require other machines for their assembly. The whole assembly apparatus is itself irreducibly complex. In a memorable line, Jonathan Wells says, "what we have here is irreducible complexity all the way down."

Scott A. Minnich is an associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho :

“Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role in the origin of the system... We find such systems within living organisms.”

Symbols are indeed things that represent other things. However, that is all that the word 'symbol' means. Any declaration that it carries thoughts or messages from a personal, intelligent mind must be supported with evidence or else it is nothing but an opinion. In short, this is where your logic fails.

Well, unless a mind assigns a meaning to the symbols, they have no meaning at all. So a mind is essential, it is required. No hole in my logic so far.....

Quote

Furthermore, what scientific inquiry has actually discovered is that DNA sequences represent instructions - not symbolic and not encoded - for making chemicals. There is no symbolism involved, except on our end - because we describe those chemicals with symbols.

The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.

this definition is independent of how we define the genetic code. It is literally a code by all means, representing the genome it codes for.

Quote

But that does not mean that something else encoded DNA with symbolic instructions.

In the same way, a book, a computer code, a partiture, or a morse code can always be tracked back to a mind, the dna code can only be result of a intelligent mind. No exeptions. Top my proof, if you can.

Quote from: Godexists

Therefore DNA ultimately came from a mind, who had to make decisions, and be extraordinarily intelligent.Because your logic is clearly flawed, your conclusion is invalid.

No logic flaws in my conclusion. Yours is a straw man counter argument.

So God created nature in such a way that biological organisms were too complex to occur via his creation, but then later intervenes in his creation so that biological organisms can exist in his creation. What is the reason for not just making it easy for his creation to give rise to biological organisms so that he didn't have to intervene in his creation? Did he forget to leave himself a note on the fridge or something? What?

God made all creation to be glorified. Microbiology glorifies his wisdom , power and intelligence.

Word salad. Anyway, you've just undone your entire argument by stating that "god made all creation." It doesn't matter whether something is a code, is laced with information or is complex as you already believe god creates all regardless of these. This argument is a dishonest case of special pleading.

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

Godexists, I'd like you to answer this question. If you don't want to, a simple "No" will suffice. Just don't leave us hanging.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

So God created nature in such a way that biological organisms were too complex to occur via his creation, but then later intervenes in his creation so that biological organisms can exist in his creation. What is the reason for not just making it easy for his creation to give rise to biological organisms so that he didn't have to intervene in his creation? Did he forget to leave himself a note on the fridge or something? What?

God made all creation to be glorified. Microbiology glorifies his wisdom , power and intelligence.

Word salad. Anyway, you've just undone your entire argument by stating that "god made all creation." It doesn't matter whether something is a code, is laced with information or is complex as you already believe god creates all regardless of these. This argument is a dishonest case of special pleading.

ok. no problem with me. believe so. you are just deluding yourself, giving preference and credence to a lie that has been told you over and over. namely, that nature is all there is.

So God created nature in such a way that biological organisms were too complex to occur via his creation, but then later intervenes in his creation so that biological organisms can exist in his creation. What is the reason for not just making it easy for his creation to give rise to biological organisms so that he didn't have to intervene in his creation? Did he forget to leave himself a note on the fridge or something? What?

God made all creation to be glorified. Microbiology glorifies his wisdom , power and intelligence.

Word salad. Anyway, you've just undone your entire argument by stating that "god made all creation." It doesn't matter whether something is a code, is laced with information or is complex as you already believe god creates all regardless of these. This argument is a dishonest case of special pleading.

ok. no problem with me. believe so. you are just deluding yourself, giving preference and credence to a lie that has been told you over and over. namely, that nature is all there is.

Well that was easy enough, not even an attempt at a refutation, just empty assertions about me that are plain wrong.

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

We set rules and debate one-on-one, without direct interference from the others (aside from the assigned moderator, should the need arise).

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

you don't buy it, because it does not fit your preconceived world view. Not, because the evidence does not lead in that direction. It actually does. And that quit clearly.

Seems to me that you're projecting your own attitudes onto others.

I'm well aware that some things - specifically constructed things - are irreducibly complex. Making a building requires you to go through certain specific steps, and if you don't do those steps in order, you end up with a pile of rubble. However, you (and the irreducible complexity crowd led by Behe) keep making the mistake of assuming that life must have been designed before you even look at any evidence, and then you look for evidence that supports the conclusion you already reached. And when someone falsifies it by showing that something - like the bacterial flagellum - was not irreducibly complex, what do you do? You say, "oh, that wasn't irreducibly complex, it must have been the precursors that were".

Face it. Irreducible complexity in biological organisms has been falsified[1], meaning it is not a scientific idea. Continuing to insist that it hasn't been won't change that fact. The only thing it will accomplish is to show that you're not interested in finding out how biology actually works, but in trying to preserve your beliefs. As you say, that your preconceived world view won't accept it, regardless of where the evidence actually leads.

Quote from: Godexists

thats a pseudo scientific try to get out of the dilemman, but the problem of the flagellum has never really been solved. And as the flagellum, there are many other nano motors in the cell, that are irreducible complex, namely the atp sinthase, the kinesin motor proteins, the rybosome, chaperones, the Cotranslational protein translocation, translesion synthesis, hexameric helicases etc. Just to name a view. And in the same way, as in a car motor engine, if one part of the motor is missing, the whole engine will not work anymore, in the same way, if one of the organelles is missing, the whole cell will not work anymore.

No, the only pseudoscience here is the concept of irreducible complexity itself, as applied to biology. When you get right down to it, it's nothing more than an attempt to say, "this cannot be broken down any further" without any real effort to disprove it. That is not how science actually works. Scientists don't just say, "well, it must be irreducible because we can't figure it out", they actually experiment to try to figure out if it actually is irreducible - well, excepting Behe and his ilk, who are apparently content to pretend that saying it makes it so. And so far, nothing that's been rigorously tested has been shown to actually be irreducible.

Of course you can take a part out of a car engine and cause the whole thing to stop working. But you won't ever find a car engine that can put itself together in the first place the way biological organisms can, so the analogy is false. The whole concept of irreducible complexity ignores the fact that biological organisms can and do put themselves together using the appropriate raw materials. If they were really irreducible, that would be impossible - something else would have to put them together.

I excised your examples because they're not actual examples of irreducible complexity. They're examples of scientists stating problems in order to figure them out, which is the way science works.

Quote from: Godexists

Don't bother making semantic arguments about how to define irreducible complexity. There are multiple parts needed for function. The challenge lies in demonstrating the incremental evolution of these components.

So far, scientists are meeting that challenge handily.

And by the way, since you (and Behe, et al) are the ones advancing the idea that irreducible complexity exists, you are the ones that must demonstrate it, and not by pointing to things and saying, "I don't see how this could be reduced, so it must not be reducible". That's just laziness.

Quote from: Godexists

I find the phenomenon of the DNA supercoiling problem and its biochemical solution even more compelling than examples like protein synthesis and the bacterial flagellum, since twisted ropes are familiar to everyone. This might make for another highly persuasive ID mascot.

The only people it is "highly persuasive" to are the ones who already believe in intelligent design. By the way, you just betrayed your real goal. It isn't to perform science, it's to try to talk people into accepting your beliefs as reality without actually proving them, as evidenced by your talk about ID mascots.

Quote from: Godexists

How could random variation and natural selection come up with a pair of biochemical scissors and a repair mechanism that cuts and splices the twisted DNA molecule in order to relieve torsional tension? What would be the functional, naturally-selectable intermediate steps in a hypothetical stochastically generated evolutionary process? It is clear that there could not possibly be any.

Arguments from incredulity aren't convincing. Asking "how could this happen? I don't know. So it's clear that it couldn't" is not science, it's laziness and incredulity. What scientists do, at least scientists who are interested in the process of figuring things out, is say, "how could this happen? I don't know. Let's figure it out."

like it or not, when something like the bacterial flagellum is held up as a primary example of irreducible complexity, and then someone shows how it isn't actually irreducibly complex, it kind of undermines the whole idea.

Furthermore, what scientific inquiry has actually discovered is that DNA sequences represent instructions - not symbolic and not encoded - for making chemicals.

The "instructions," however, are themselves chemicals. That's what DNA is: A complex aggregation of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen that is structured in long strings of nucleotides. Each part of the nucleotide is capable of bonding to proteins in its environment such that the proteins are manipulated into a complementary string, like a photo negative.

There doesn't need to be a "mind," either divine or mortal, directing these chemical reactions. The electrical properties of the atoms take care of that.

Quote

In the same way, a book, a computer code, a partiture, or a morse code can always be tracked back to a mind, the dna code can only be result of a intelligent mind. No exeptions. Top my proof, if you can.

As I indicated above, DNA is a chemical compound and behaves like one. Any "code" is post hoc explanation and anthropomorphization unrelated to the behaviour of DNA.

Quote from: Godexists

Therefore DNA ultimately came from a mind, who had to make decisions, and be extraordinarily intelligent.

Even if that were so, why assume that the "mind" is of supernatural origin?

Learn how to quote properly, Godexists. That means don't leave parts of your own post in something that you attribute me as having written, and make sure that you don't put your own name on something I wrote.

Well, unless a mind assigns a meaning to the symbols, they have no meaning at all. So a mind is essential, it is required. No hole in my logic so far.....

Given that DNA worked just fine before humans ever existed, and we don't have any evidence whatsoever of any mind that assigned meaning to it in order for it to do the job of conserving hereditary traits, I would say that there is no reason to assume that a mind is essential or required. In other words, your argument is pure sophistry and semantics, depending on manipulating human definitions of words in order to hold any water at all.

Quote from: Godexists

that explains your inquiry :

No it doesn't. All that website does is describe DNA so that other people can understand it. It does not support your argument that some external mind is necessary in order for DNA to work.

Quote from: Godexists

false.

Sorry, but that didn't prove a thing. What that abstract is doing is describing DNA using human semantics. We're wired to think in terms of languages, so people tend to describe it as such, but that doesn't make DNA an actual language. It does not support your argument that some external mind is necessary in order for DNA to work.

Quote from: Godexists

this definition is independent of how we define the genetic code. It is literally a code by all means, representing the genome it codes for.

No, that definition is utterly dependent on semantics. It only exists because of human semantics, specifically you using semantic terms to support it, so trying to claim that it's independent doesn't work.

Quote from: Godexists

In the same way, a book, a computer code, a partiture, or a morse code can always be tracked back to a mind, the dna code can only be result of a intelligent mind. No exeptions. Top my proof, if you can.

You have to support your argument with evidence - real evidence, not assumptions based on your own preconceived notions - before asking me to 'top' it. Your argument depends on your assumption that there is a mind that made DNA and gives it meaning, but you have never once shown any evidence whatsoever that there is such a mind. You don't get to declare "no exceptions" simply because you can't think of any - that's nothing more than the incredulity fallacy. It's up to you to prove your case, not declare that it's true and try to shift the burden of proof onto people who disagree with you. Because that's just dishonest.

Quote from: Godexists

No logic flaws in my conclusion. Yours is a straw man counter argument.

Your inability to recognize the flaws in your own argument doesn't meant that they don't exist. Indeed, I've shown several times now that your argument depends on circular reasoning - which is itself a logical fallacy. Frankly, until you stop assuming that there is such a mind and that you don't need to prove it, your argument will always contain that fatal flaw.

you don't buy it, because it does not fit your preconceived world view. Not, because the evidence does not lead in that direction. It actually does. And that quit clearly.

How can you know something is irreducibly complex and it isn't just a case of you not having all the information or not figuring it out? That is the big problem I see with the whole idea of IR. Someone just declares that something is "irreducibly complex". How do they know?

In order to be able to be a representation of something else , the code must be designed. A mental process is required.

I still have no idea how to look at something and determine whether or not it is a code.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I do think that geneticists have to start moving away from terms like "information" and "code", or else come up with a synonym that doesn't suggest sentient involvement in the process but presents DNA replication as more mechanistic.

I do think that geneticists have to start moving away from terms like "information" and "code", or else come up with a synonym that doesn't suggest sentient involvement in the process but presents DNA replication as more mechanistic.

I disagree. As unpleasant as it might be I think the delusional need to be disabused of their delusions rather than concessions being made to their willful dishonesty and ignorance.

Logged

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me. -Emo Philips

I have a question for you. Is it your contention that all the species alive on earth today were 'created' as they are now or is it that at some time in the past some species were 'created' and those species evolved into what we see today?

Now, for Irreducibly Complex (IC), we have the flagellum so beloved of your here Michael Behe. It is the most pushed piece of IC of all I think and the Dover Trial spent a long time on it. I thought you owul want to comment on Ic in relation to the flagellum after watching the following short film.

Finally, with all the talk of designers, please tell me what progress has been made in tracking down the designer? I don't mean using the bible or other holy books but surely it should be possible to trace the designer in some way as producing the designer would enhance the case beyond all measure.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Seriously, what's the point. It wouldn't matter if Godexists believed life was the simplest thing to ever exist because they would still see it as evidence for ID..... because they already believe everything was created by god to begin with! It's the biggest tell tale sign that this argument is only used by those who already believe a god exists who made everything, and these people were never convinced about the existence of god from this argument. It's a special pleading case from an a priori assumption, working backwards from a conclusion they have already drawn. It's bogus and dishonest.

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.